Victoria rental housing market and related issues discussion
#861
Posted 24 October 2017 - 10:24 AM
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#862
Posted 26 October 2017 - 02:52 PM
http://www.timescolo...hole-1.23076267
So I guess under the new rules tenants will be forced to vacate the premises once their year lease is up so that new tenants, who pay more, can then move in.
#863
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:14 PM
...So I guess under the new rules tenants will be forced to vacate the premises once their year lease is up so that new tenants, who pay more, can then move in.
I don't think that's quite how it is supposed to work
...Under the new legislation, “the rent [rate] stays with the tenant, so when the fixed term ends, it rolls into month-to-month unless the tenant chooses to end it,”...
#864
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:17 PM
http://www.timescolo...hole-1.23076267
So I guess under the new rules tenants will be forced to vacate the premises once their year lease is up so that new tenants, who pay more, can then move in.
Basically. It's not much of a fix. In the case of couples, the landlord can have one partner sign one year, the other the next.
You can't force owners to rent their property forever. So vacate clauses will still be used.
Edited by VicHockeyFan, 26 October 2017 - 03:20 PM.
- jonny likes this
#865
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:18 PM
...In the case of couples, the landlord can have one partner sign one year, the other the next.
What couple would agree to that?
- VicHockeyFan likes this
#866
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:22 PM
What couple would agree to that?
Agree or the landlord moves on to the other 30 applicants on his list. You could say what tenant would agree to the existing vacate clauses, but I guess some do, thus the need for this "fix" in the NDP's mind.
#867
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:24 PM
#868
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:24 PM
I think a landlord would be in a heap of trouble if he tried to make a couple sign 2 separate leases.
#869
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:25 PM
#870
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:28 PM
I wish I could read the article... but I refuse to give money to the TC.
Is the CBC okay? http://www.cbc.ca/ne...phole-1.4374057
- sdwright.vic likes this
#871
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:29 PM
- Rob Randall, Matt R., sdwright.vic and 1 other like this
#872
Posted 26 October 2017 - 03:31 PM
This might even be a bonus for the landlord. By changing out tenants every year he has access to potentially keep more damage deposits.
#873
Posted 26 October 2017 - 04:22 PM
more regulations just increases headaches for landlords who passes those costs onto tenants
- VicHockeyFan likes this
#874
Posted 26 October 2017 - 06:12 PM
- VicHockeyFan likes this
#875
Posted 26 October 2017 - 06:28 PM
This new rule will be a boon to uhaul and moving companies as tenants will now be moving more frequently.
Every time the Government tries to step in and regulate a free market economy they wind up with unintended consequences. I realize that the law isn't intended to have tenants move every year but that will be the outcome if landlords are forced to find new tenants every year in order to get market rents for their units.
- jonny likes this
#876
Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:27 PM
My understanding is with the closure of the loophole the only way a landlord can get a tenant out, outside of damaging the unit etc., is if the unit is going to undergo major renovations or a landlords immediate family is going to move into the unit. The whole purpose was to stop having people have to move out.
And the yearly rate increase is limited to 2% plus inflation.
The landlords association had input into this legislation and are on board with it.
- Nparker likes this
#877
Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:40 PM
My understanding is with the closure of the loophole the only way a landlord can get a tenant out, outside of damaging the unit etc., is if the unit is going to undergo major renovations or a landlords immediate family is going to move into the unit. The whole purpose was to stop having people have to move out.
And the yearly rate increase is limited to 2% plus inflation.
The landlords association had input into this legislation and are on board with it.
No, the landlord can make you move and rent to another person with a 20% rent increase. He just can not rent it again to you with that increase.
He can probably rent it to his sister and have her sublet it to you though, with his premission.
It's a hamhanded idea.
Edited by VicHockeyFan, 26 October 2017 - 07:43 PM.
- Awaiting Juno likes this
#878
Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:41 PM
How can he make you move?
#879
Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:54 PM
How can he make you move?
He gives you a fixed-term tenancy, as he does now. You MUST leave at the end. Now, you must leave - but both parties might renegotiate a new tenancy, and you stay. Now with this, you must leave and he is unable to renew with you.
You can not end fixed date tenancies or nobody would be able to rent their units for part of the year etc., or rent it for 2 years until they move here and move in. So fixed term is still allowed.
#880
Posted 27 October 2017 - 06:48 AM
No, the landlord can make you move and rent to another person with a 20% rent increase. He just can not rent it again to you with that increase.
He can probably rent it to his sister and have her sublet it to you though, with his premission.
It's a hamhanded idea.
Brothers and sisters are not a "close" family member according to the act.
Close family member: This means the father, mother or child of the landlord or the landlord’s spouse – it doesn’t include the brother or sister of the landlord or the brother or sister of the landlord’s spouse. If a family corporation owns the rental unit, then a close family member would also include an individual who owns, or whose close family member owns, all the voting shares.
https://www2.gov.bc....onth-notice#Use
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users